Hi everyone,

as far as I know there is a statement coverage analyzer built into DMD https://dlang.org/code_coverage.html . Are there code coverage analyzers for D which support branch coverage and other more advanced coverage metrics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_coverage ?

Cheers,
thinwybk

On Monday, 4 December 2017 at 20:33:56 UTC, thinwybk wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> as far as I know there is a statement coverage analyzer built into DMD https://dlang.org/code_coverage.html . Are there code coverage analyzers for D which support branch coverage and other more advanced coverage metrics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_coverage ?
>
> Cheers,
> thinwybk

No, the compiler reports only statement coverage. Higher levels reports could be made by a tool that would use the LST file and the AST produced by libdparse.

On Monday, 4 December 2017 at 20:33:56 UTC, thinwybk wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> as far as I know there is a statement coverage analyzer built into DMD https://dlang.org/code_coverage.html . Are there code coverage analyzers for D which support branch coverage and other more advanced coverage metrics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_coverage ?

LDC's PGO output can be used for that. See [1]. Except that LDC does not yet output full source mappings for the counters (`-fcoverage-mapping`).
Because the DMD frontend rewrites code besides semantic analysis, it is problematic to create correct source mappings, and I have thusfar refrained from implementing that.
(For folks interested in contributing to LDC: it'd be a nice project to work on, with nice incremental steps. It's quite possible that there is already enough info in the IR for IR-based (instead of current PGO instrumentation) instrumentation/mapping to work well)

-Johan

[1] https://clang.llvm.org/docs/SourceBasedCodeCoverage.html

On 12/5/2017 2:55 AM, Basile B. wrote:
> On Monday, 4 December 2017 at 20:33:56 UTC, thinwybk wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> as far as I know there is a statement coverage analyzer built into DMD https://dlang.org/code_coverage.html . Are there code coverage analyzers for D which support branch coverage and other more advanced coverage metrics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_coverage ?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> thinwybk
> 
> No, the compiler reports only statement coverage. Higher levels reports could be made by a tool that would use the LST file and the AST produced by libdparse.

The wiki lists function coverage, statement coverage, branch coverage, and condition coverage. The builtin coverage analyzer does all of them.

However, if you put multiple statements, conditions, etc., on one line, you'll get the sum of the usage counts.

On Wednesday, 6 December 2017 at 03:15:38 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 12/5/2017 2:55 AM, Basile B. wrote:
>> On Monday, 4 December 2017 at 20:33:56 UTC, thinwybk wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> as far as I know there is a statement coverage analyzer built into DMD https://dlang.org/code_coverage.html . Are there code coverage analyzers for D which support branch coverage and other more advanced coverage metrics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_coverage ?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> thinwybk
>> 
>> No, the compiler reports only statement coverage. Higher levels reports could be made by a tool that would use the LST file and the AST produced by libdparse.
>
> The wiki lists function coverage, statement coverage, branch coverage, and condition coverage. The builtin coverage analyzer does all of them.
>
> However, if you put multiple statements, conditions, etc., on one line, you'll get the sum of the usage counts.

Indeed, but there's still some room for a tool. I'd add this to my IDE since for now coverage is not indicated in the code editor but in the messages (a message for each line that's not covered).

Anyway it's a two days project (at most), i've proposed it to D-Scanner:

https://github.com/dlang-community/D-Scanner/issues/540

On Tuesday, 5 December 2017 at 12:39:53 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:
> LDC's PGO output can be used for that. See [1]. Except that LDC does not yet output full source mappings for the counters (`-fcoverage-mapping`).
> Because the DMD frontend rewrites code besides semantic analysis, it is problematic to create correct source mappings, and I have thusfar refrained from implementing that.
> (For folks interested in contributing to LDC: it'd be a nice project to work on, with nice incremental steps. It's quite possible that there is already enough info in the IR for IR-based (instead of current PGO instrumentation) instrumentation/mapping to work well)

Advanced code coverage would have been a nice to have. Especially in the technical and/or embedded domain where DMD is in most cases no option anyway (LDC or GDC are the two choices here).

Unfortunately other projects have higher priority for me right now.

On Wednesday, 6 December 2017 at 06:05:32 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
>
> Indeed, but there's still some room for a tool. I'd add this to my IDE since for now coverage is not indicated in the code editor but in the messages (a message for each line that's not covered).
>
> Anyway it's a two days project (at most), i've proposed it to D-Scanner:
>
> https://github.com/dlang-community/D-Scanner/issues/540

Having tooling support for advanced coverage analysis would make D more interesting to people in the industrial domain. Some other aspects would need attention as well (garbage collection). However I am looking forward to the DConf 2018 and I am curious about the future development of D and its ecosystem...